Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 1, 2014 10:00pm-10:31pm EST

10:00 pm
american and european politicians pledge their support for. democracy. to pull out of direct talks with the opposition if they don't get. to.
10:01 pm
we have a full round up of news in just under in the meantime you can get all of the latest on these stories and more online at www dot com up next though it's martin as she looks at some of the n.s.a. the stranger n.s.a. snooping operations. the the the. happy friday folks i'm out at martin and this is a break in the set so yesterday the governor of massachusetts announce that federal prosecutors will be seeking the death penalty for a show cars of one of the alleged boston marathon bombers yes after shooting dozens of rounds of bullets it's been living in near death it was a nurse back to health only to face execution all over again make sense now of course justice needs to be served for the perpetrators of this despicable act in
10:02 pm
which four people tragically lost their lives and dozens more were left wounded and hopefully a trial will indeed prove that was responsible for the death penalty is banned under massachusetts state law which means he's the only third the only the third person in the state's history to face federal capital punishment furthermore a september poll found that only thirty three percent of massachusetts residents support the death penalty for it and by seeking execution the trial could drag on for months really traumatizing america for much longer than necessary but beyond just these reasons not to allow the state sponsored execution of the twenty year old capital punishment is just flat out wrong there is no humane way to kill someone and seeking the death penalty does nothing i continue the cycle of horrific violence and brutality that this attack first started now let's break the set. of the. it was
10:03 pm
a. very hard to take. well i never had sex with her but there. between tracking people's porn habits to spy on our next lovers you would think that the n.s.a. leaks couldn't get any weirder revelation from earlier this week shows that the agency is also watching you play angry birds to data mine everything from
10:04 pm
a user's political affiliation to their sexual orientation great cause i won't be playing candy crush any time soon but with all the flak that the n.s.a. has been getting over the past year it's easy to forget that our neighbor to the north how exactly been a huge advocate for civil liberties either so well the corporate media is attention has been soley focused on uncle peeping tom the most recent snowden leaks show that a johnny come knock who's also been sticking his hockey puck or doesn't belong today c.b.c. news reported that canada's own spy agency called the sec used the airport why fight attract travelers movements but the agency didn't stop there so you could continue tracking individuals long after they left the airport by monitoring when their wireless devices showed up at other wife i hotspots in cities across canada and the u.s. according to leave power point presentation in two thousand and twelve the program was a trial run for a joint the second n.s.a. program to track quote any target that makes occasional forays into other cities because we all know that for rain equals terrorism. the document also shows that
10:05 pm
the sec was able to go back in time once i did it once that identified a specific traveler and see that person's various wife by location leading up to their arrival at the airport yes retro active tracking and i guess time travel isn't just reserved for marty mcfly anymore so how is the second responding to this by. shall report on a written response of the agency i'm sorry in a written response to c.b.c. news the agency said that quote no canadian or foreign travelers movements were tracked no i didn't add quotes that were tracked that was their exact response i guess putting words in quotes is all you need to do to justify illegality in canada the n.s.a. should employ that tactic and their response is if director of national intelligence james clapper want to just use airports when he told congress that the n.s.a. does not wittingly collect data on americans it would put those old
10:06 pm
unconstitutional global surveillance in the rest in fact clinton might have been spared an impeachment if only he would have said that i did not have sexual relations with that woman and bush would have gone down as a slightly more popular president if he would have just said that we found the weapons of mass destruction the point is that the gas city of seasick to get this type of response should be just as concerning to every canadian citizen as the revelation of the program itself terry was privacy minister on a convoke in even one as far as saying this resembles the activities of a talent tarion state not a free and open society. could have said it better myself and the continuing release of these documents show how the proliferation of these type of spying tactics are not just limited to north american borders in fact as i pointed out on the show before the agreement known as the five eyes between the u.s. and u.k. canada australia and new zealand has been around since world war two and it allows
10:07 pm
each of these nations to circumvent their own survey limits laws and share their illegals spine activities with each other so as we continue to turn up the heat on the you and i say here in the west and rightly so let us not forget about the other nations complicit in this criminal dragnet approach to intelligence gathering because in the end although canada might seem like the less aggressive version of the us when it comes to spine and. like our docile neighbor to the north part of page right out of uncle sam's little black book. line is as old as language itself in fact the art of deceit is hardwired into every human being and it's important part of our species culture everybody lives some big some small and as often as we lie to others every day we're lied to anywhere from
10:08 pm
ten to two hundred times according to a study done by the science museum of london that same study of two thousand individuals found that on average men lie six times a day and twice as women often i have women do so how do you know when you're being lied to and more importantly how can you spot a liar tell me go over a few of the tell tale signs of dishonesty and during a break in the separate is there and huge liar man well raffaello what is going on man. and i at so i think you know we're going to use this on the political context because i think that's the most important thing and not all lies are bad right well looks. like the problem i really tell little one. is that you don't use it and i went straight to. the you saying i'm sorry i missed it yes you know lying isn't always bad sometimes it's used to spare people's feelings and also all of these signs aren't necessarily actual signs of lies they're just red flag wrote a book and used to kind of help tell if someone's line the first speech this is
10:09 pm
very obvious and i think of course when people think of prominent political people who have been liars bill clinton sexual i did not have sexual relations that woman let's hear him talking about this and i'm looking to dissect what he says. sexual relations with. this little. i never told anybody to lie not a single time there were these allegations for forbes and i need to go back to work for the america. needs to go back to work man and stop i thought he learned his game i think you made a good point the last segment was that if he had just not said sexual release you just change the context a little bit but no this is one of those the famous most famous examples of lying that people use right now and it's i think for two reasons one is that it really clearly exemplifies how people tend to use formal very formal language when they're lying i did not versus i didn't or
10:10 pm
a man i didn't do that for all right and then that distancing language as well right that warman miss lewinsky. and. if you are a really really really people tend to trip over words the inflections in the voice these are all the kind of telltale signs in speech let's go on to body language nixon was another big fat liar i mean everyone is in politics is pretty much a liar but i mean these are the big we're all liars we're all a lie if we are they all are liars we all are liars but nixon of course that one of the most famous cases of lies let's hear from him. i have never obstructed justice and i think that i could say that in my years of public life that i welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their presidents are crook but i'm not a crook i i everything. so what what's up with them i mean
10:11 pm
these these are micro expressions and i think i don't know if we were able to see at the very end where he folds his arms and he anytime that you see someone i mean and again because these are not you know exactly is not an exact science these are just red flags when people are open and they're relaxed that's a sign of honesty usually you close yourself off you're in the defense of these are these are signs of someone being a little bit more deceitful and they're called micro expressions you can catch it in people's movements in the way that even in the way that they speak and i feel really bad for dick nixon because he used to always sweat a lot in fact that's what it was and he lost the debate against kennedy before he became president it was because he was sweating a lot and that kind of it's amazing every time you look at a press secretary they're just so why do they look nervous they just line cantero netanyahu there is no god is this filtered through all the people asking questions of why their way out of it dick cheney. in congress you know and i'm sorry this is this is a great one within body language and common sense when somebody is like telling you
10:12 pm
something but then like nodding their head like yeah i'd be happy to take a paternity test though those are the ones that are easy to catch but you've got to be looking for yeah you know once people start looking for lies if they're easier to spot and as you mentioned earlier like it like facing toward an exit or facing like you want to get away your body language can be you know it's the exit test police use that a lot in interrogations because no but you know police are trained to spot people they'll use tactics like telling people to repeat can you repeat that i didn't actually hear that tend to go over that story you know what tell your story back and see how they do there when people are put up and in a corner like that their body language tends to point we're going to get the hell out of here dick cheney huge liar i don't know if he ever really said a word of truth there oh look at this and i'm sorry that we don't have a better picture of him actually i'm sorry and there's really isn't a lot of this actually pretty good asymmetry in the face is tends to. be
10:13 pm
a good sign of dishonesty and one of those that really stands out is contempt and this is a could all sit here and all of that what you thought it was a look of that from good old dick here you know the curl in the mouth this gal does have contempt for everyone around here a good time and he might not even have been lying this is it also just well we looked every day so we can move on without talking about bush the master of water only because we have him for a while let's play it. the main reason we went right it's a time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction he didn't but he had the capacity to make weapons of mischief and also talked about the human suffering in iraq and also talked a need to advance for freedom agenda. and so my question my answer to your question is it imagine a world which is omniscient and once there stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world. that so much there's so much hatred that three people came and killed three thousand of our citizens oh my god oh my
10:14 pm
god he just said like ten different things circularly back to remember not all of it this is what's known as a logical fallacy and this is particularly important that people know how to spot when they're looking at politicians on the news in press conferences that among the many logical fallacies that bush was responsible for was red herring right otherwise known as changing the goalpost we talking about the real reason why we invaded iraq and then he goes full circle and brings about put what about what about now the label to force if we didn't do that and what could have been. my argument or something bad's going to happen and i have to say about this up it goes both ways journalist it's also the responsibility of journalists and people to decipher of these lies from politicians and report on them accurately it's not it's a two way street the light doesn't work unless someone believes the lie right i mean you're watching you're watching politicians and if journalists aren't catching these logical fallacies aren't catching these signs then they're feeding into it
10:15 pm
because at the end of the day a lie is only good if the person that's being lied to accept that lie right so in a lot of ways it's almost a mutual understand and when it's as obvious as bush i mean really i don't there's no excuse for the establishment press and really every person in the press to accept that at face value i mean it's outrageous thank you so much man a really enlightening subject is out liar how do. you know. shocking reaction through obama's baby and figure out. on june sixteenth one thousand forty one we had a graduation party at school and the war broke out. the shops were always full of goods. in september
10:16 pm
leningrad was blocked. one day mom went and saw that all the shelves were empty. in november they bombed the day of steel warehouses it was the main storage place for all the food in the city people would eating the earth because it had small traces of sugar in it i tried to eat it as well but i couldn't. good it was incredibly heavy bombing. it was a direct hit on that very shelter and everyone was buried underneath. all of them would. choose your language. with oh if you.
10:17 pm
choose to use the concerns you. choose the opinions that invigorating. choose the stories that imply life choose the excess off to. so obama's state of the union was as we expected all political pandering basis platitudes and of course every mainstream t.v. anchor was in a dizzy trying to decipher every word in order to rally their party base immediately following the presidential address the g.o.p. put up their best and brightest to offer a hard hitting rebuttal. the president talks a lot about income inequality but the real gap we face today is one of opportunity
10:18 pm
inequality and with this administration's policies that gap has become far too wide . wow brilliant retort by representative cathy mcmorris rodgers and the rest of her speech was plain painful to watch because it all down it was apparently the republican party thinks it's going to save itself by treating americans like a bunch of glue eating five year olds moving on from this charade to another rogers then went on c.n.n. with wolf blitzer and got a chance to answer real question about women's pay considering how right now women still make seventy seven cents for every dollar a man does. or you want the president when he says that there should be laws mandating equal pay for equal work for women yes yes absolutely. republicans and i support equal pay for equal work my message last night was one about empowering everyone in this country no matter what your background no matter
10:19 pm
where you live what. no matter what your experiences are we want you to have the opportunity for a better life also i guess we're going to expect hale in a second to prove how much she supports women with all our political power right. spider staunch support of obama's rhetoric has already voted against laws specifically addressing the pay disparity between men and women not once not twice but four times and two of those times were against the paycheck fairness act which was aimed at ending salary secrecy so women could be more aware of bias and discrimination in the workplace but all of this just isn't surprising considering how washington is built on lies hell d.c. should just be called d.c. to say we need to go elected and then don't do any of it however admits the noise of the republican machine base as they calling obama a socialist there was an actual socialist offering her own response to the speech.
10:20 pm
but these problems are not new and they are not an accident where king people have faced nearly four decades also wage stagnation and rising income inequality these four decades which former republican presidents and three democratic presidents for decades that show that neither party is capable of solving these problems and they fundamentally represent the same interests the interests of the super wealthy and big corporations both parties bow down before the free market and loyally serve the interests of their corporate masters well the only difference being in the matter of degree. word i was. the first official socialist elected to a political position in decades her entire statement is not only genuine it's officially a bad ass i can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear someone in the elected position calling out our political reality exactly as it is so one goes on
10:21 pm
a shred of pretty much every portion of the state of the union from fracking to the minimum wage it offers a hard hitting critique of how all of it is just perpetuating the same destructive status quo so one has caused quite the upset in the verge of two party dictatorship by winning a landmark ninety three thousand votes to defeat a longtime democratic incumbent in seattle she won soley on individual donations of those who believed in her radical platform and refused a dime from big business for the campaign so walk back to mcmorris rodgers continues to teach a preschool class on opportunity and he quality so want to speak in a hard truth to power that people are finally ready to hear. the supreme court recently heard opening arguments for a case called the harris quinn it's
10:22 pm
a decision involving home care workers employed by the state of illinois who are resisting their state union choosing instead to opt out of the mandatory union fees for representation the concern among supporters for labor unions is that the supreme court could overturn almost forty years worth of legal precedent that is given leverage for the organized labor movement and on the surface this case seems fairly innocuous and knock us excuse me as it has received little to no attention by the corporate media its outcome could have damning implications for the future of unions and middle class workers all across the nation earlier today i was joined by craig bakker general counsel with the a.f.l. c.i.a.o. to discuss this case and i first asked him why it's problematic that state work. opt out of pain union feeds. there's nothing problematic with people opting out and that's what the law already provide so the law already provides and has provided for decades and no one is required to be a union member so if as in this case a majority of the workers who wish to be represented then in the public sector as
10:23 pm
well as in the private sector the union represents everybody in the unit so if they negotiate a wage increase everybody gets it not just union members if someone gets fired it is treated unfairly the union has an obligation to represent everybody no one has to be a member of the union the only thing that can be required of him is required by alan oil law is that everyone pay their share of the cost of representation so that's different from union dues which might say a contribution to a political candidate it's just paying your fair share of the cost of the representation that's all that can be required that's all that's at issue here supreme courts making this case into a free speech issue. what is your opinion about that how is this a free speech issue or the argument about free speech is really about free association so the notion is that there's some form of compelled association here that these individuals who brought the challenge don't wish to be represented by the union and don't wish to associate with the union don't wish to support the
10:24 pm
union even though the unions brought them a wage increase and they represent them if they have a grievance so the notion is that it's a form of forced association now over forty years ago the supreme court said that's a form of force association which is justified by the way the system of collective bargaining works if you have one representative it works better when you have one representative it works better when that representative has a duty to represent everybody and that's not going to work if you allow people to essentially be free riders so there is an argument about free association and forced association but it is one that the supreme court has spoken to some four decades ago. and the case. as you mentioned it's about the state of illinois would this have been the cations on you means nationwide the more narrow but very significant implication is that the organization of this type of work or at least home care workers is probably one of the biggest organizing successes of the last twenty five years by unions so in california illinois oregon washington these
10:25 pm
workers have organized and it's a very rapidly expanding occupation and the population is aging more people wish to be cared for at home as opposed to an institution so as unions organize these workers at the same time there were more and more of these workers. a million workers nationwide have been organized under these types of laws so the notion that you could have these laws are unconstitutional or that the linchpin of what makes organizing an representation successful that is the ability to have everyone pay the cost and not impose a cost only on members is threatened by this litigation that's the narrow implication the broader implication is that the court order leaves justice alito essentially invited a broader challenge to the notion of exclusive representation and the so-called fair share fees. about a year and a half ago in a case called nocs which involved again a narrower issue
10:26 pm
a budget in which he explicitly question this whole forty years of precedent allowing exclusive representation in the collection of these fair share fees in the public sector and that broader challenge is also ready to shoot so that would in all the states in which we have public sector collective bargaining about half the states really fundamentally change the nature of that bargain if the broader argument was accepted was he referring to the three detroit board of education exactly. so it could affect that ruling in a broader sense from a very much. plaintiffs although they originally brought the case as the narrower challenge and it was litigated in the district court and the court of appeals. on the seventh circuit on the narrow grounds the poor question essentially being does the rationale of the food which are held fair share fees in the public sector apply to these workers who are conceivably only jointly employed by the state as the state pays their wages so that's their wages provides various benefits but they're
10:27 pm
actually hired and fired by the customers who take care of them so it's a joint employment does that rational of a boot apply in this context that was the original argument encouraged by justice alito as opinion in vox the plaintiffs have now explicitly asked for food to be overturned so much more for rod and and really radical argument indeed for those who don't really understand the right to work and and kind of the union issue in general is there any direct evidence that right to work states have any sort of different safety standards or a pay difference is the non right to work states where you know. the use of the term right to work is very appropriate. we usually think of the term right to work as applying in the private sector it is in the private sector we have a federal law which allows exclusive representation which allows the collection of fees to be used to fund the cost of that representation except in states which are put up that so-called right to work laws. which prohibit such arrangements what
10:28 pm
this case would do if the more radical argument was accepted was essentially constitutionalized the principle of the right to work in the public sector and there is lots of evidence of the type you describe and there's evidence which shows that right to work law is correlated with lower union representation lower wages. lower safety. lower wages. lack of benefits pension health care or other benefits or workplace safety the whole gamut of what you would expect where you have less union density and we have but a minute left but. what would this or would this rather. have an effect on political representation and sort of the electoral process it would impose a burden on the treasury is that it would essentially require members and their dues to support the cost of representing other people and not members and collect the bar so by weakening the unions generally it would certainly have indirect
10:29 pm
implications in the political arena but this could have severe because shien's on the labor movement as a whole kind of set it back. quite a bit well you know it's just this broader said quite pointedly an argument this would really be a return to the one nine hundred thirty s. in terms of the courts intervention in labor relations so it would really him to have the court intruding into what half the states have said they want their system of relations with their own employees to be so it would be a very radical potentially very radical disruption of that process extremely important case i wonder why we're not hearing about it much thank you so much for coming on breaking it down a very enlightening craig backor general council american federation of labor and congress of industrial organizations appreciate your time pleasure. that's our show you guys a break the set all over again next week. of
10:30 pm
the nine hundred fourteen the scenario is that likable today because the united states is becoming the dominant force on every continent but brian when it when we look at calculations and strategy i have to go back to iraq afghanistan libya and in that's all recklessness in my opinion if you know the u.s. policy resembles those what the caricature of those western movies where they put the drunken cowboys coming to town and shoot the place up just because they can. to speak your language. will use programs and documentaries in arabic in school here on the. reporting from the world's hot spots the v.i.p.'s interviews intriguing stories.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on